Would it be your 300mm or 400mm

T

Tugster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,421
Name
Tug
Edit My Images
Yes
Im in the predicament of moving up to a 2.8 prime....

Now if I had the choice, what would be the best for my type of shooting...I mainly do Rugby Football and Cricket at various levels....and anything else I am asked to do really !
 
400 2.8 without a doubt. Pricier but used ones can be had for £2500ish.
 
For me it would depend on wether youre shooting full frame or with a crop body and if you shoot under floodlights, full frame and the 400 wins, crop and the 300 wins, but if price is no object then the 400mm but whatever choice you make id always have a 1.4x in my bag.
 
400 F/2.8 perfect with a 1.4 TC on crop or a 1.7 TC on full frame
 
He's on a 1DS3 so full frame. Even so, on a 1.3x crop like the 1D, the 400 is top. Yes, it's probably a bit long on a 1.6x and you could use a 300 quite nicely, especially with an extender in the bag just in case.
 
Tobers said:
400 2.8 without a doubt. Pricier but used ones can be had for £2500ish.
Click to expand...

I presume you mean the non IS one at that price?
 
Tobers....IDS3 Has gone so it will probably be on crop..mk4 poss
 
Also depends if youre shooting the one body, i would say if only one body then the 300mm is better, if 2 bodies then the 400mm and a 70-200mm on the 2nd
 
Good point. If it's a 1d4 and only one body then you can get away with the 300 as you can crop in quite well. £1500 gets you a good one, non IS for sure but then you don't need it for action sport anyway.
 
I'm in a similar predicament.

I have a 300 2.8 IS and the opportunity has come up to upgrade to a 400 2.8 IS.

I do a wide variety of sports so I'm not sure what to do. I do equestrian, horseracing, rugby, football, golf etc. As most of the stuff is during the day, the 300 with a 1.4 is normally fine but you can struggle sometimes with the slower AF and it can lead to more softer images especially on a burst.
The football and rugby are mainly under lights and I cope fine with the 300 for the football as I normally sit on the sideline which gives me good coverage of the entire pitch but the rugby is a different kettle of fish as you have to sit so far back from the play that the 300 isn't really up to the mark.

I suppose what is really bothering me is whether it makes financial sense to be upgrading as the amount of money that is made from rugby is small. Most of it comes from the equestrian/horse racing side of things and the 70-200/300 combo is perfect for that, not that the 400 wouldn't go astray at the race track!

What would you do? I do weddings also so that would pay for it quickly as well but i'll never use it at a wedding so trying to justify everything in my head is difficult.
Would a 400 help you to get more work do you think? WHat I mean is would an agency look at you with more interest if you posessed one or could they not care less once the images are coming in?
And of course there is the problem of herself finding out what this stuff costs and murdering me. Whats a man to do????

Edit: Forgot to say that I use 1d bodies if that makes any difference. I would imagine a 400 is essential on a full fram Nikon?
 
Last edited:
Well I took the plunge and bought the 300mm 2.8IS ...I'm going to give it a run out tonight at Pontefract Collieries game.

I also use the 1.4TC MK2 so I'll probably give that a whirl tonight to see how it performs. I dont think the lights are too good at Ponte so it will be a good test of the lens.

My 1DS3 sold the other day so I'm just waiting for one of my other lenses to sell then I'll be having a new Mk4.. Then I get to really see how it performs...I'll be using the 5D2 tonight as thats all I have left at the moment.

Ref the 300 V 400, I think Im going to be ok on the crop of the mk4 with the 300. however, saying that, I see the other guys on this thread are using the 400 with the crop bodies..I think Tony (Kipax also uses his 1.4 on that too(Cricket shots)

Time will tell... I think if your wedding work will pay for it, then go ahead and give it a go...I see there has been a few 400 IS's on the Ebay just lately, so may be worth making a trip out to go and viewing before buying...Probably save you a few bob if you pick up a decent second user one, especially if you decide to sell on if its not suitable for your work flow.

It would be interesting if you could post your decisions and findings.
 
Well Mr Tug good to see you finally got something :thumbs:

For cricket I would certainly recommend the 400 and maybe with 1.4TC on mk3 or mk4. You proberbly will get away 300 at local stuff with TC but the 2x TC does affect the speed of focus (not too much of a problem with cricket). For rugby shooting under lights will be a big problem and maybe struggle a bit with 1Ds so careful positioning will be important.
 
Hello Graham,

I picked up the 300 is version...Tried it out under very low light last night but I was using the 5d2 ...1DS3 Sold, so now just waiting for the mk4 to arrive.

The levels last night were only giving me 1/125@2.8@6400..... The results were very average for the settings. The light levels varied considerably around the pitch 1.5 - 2 stops. I can't wait to get out a do some Rugby at the weekend.It will be my luck that the weather will be atrocious ! ! !

I wish I had have bought that 400mk2 you were selling now...never mind another will come along, especially with the new canon primes coming out.

Tug
 
Tugster said:
Hello Graham,

I picked up the 300 is version...Tried it out under very low light last night but I was using the 5d2 ...1DS3 Sold, so now just waiting for the mk4 to arrive.

The levels last night were only giving me 1/125@2.8@6400..... The results were very average for the settings. The light levels varied considerably around the pitch 1.5 - 2 stops. I can't wait to get out a do some Rugby at the weekend.It will be my luck that the weather will be atrocious ! ! !

I wish I had have bought that 400mk2 you were selling now...never mind another will come along, especially with the new canon primes coming out.

Tug
Click to expand...
Tug, longer telephoto lenses let in less light so you would probably have been down to 1/100th sec @ 6400 using a 400mm instead of a 300mm.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Tug, longer telephoto lenses let in less light so you would probably have been down to 1/100th sec @ 6400 using a 400mm instead of a 300mm.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I wondered why the images shot with my 135L looked brighter than those shot with the 300, even when both shot on the same body, with identical aperture, shutter speed etc.
 
Its not nice the world of night sports photography. We place such high demands on our kit and our sanity to gain that near impossible shot....

Gary...Thank you for the gen on the 400mm light levels....never really thought about that before..in fact like Phil(Redmonkee) mentioned...I was under the belief 2.8 on the 300 would yield the same results as 2.8 on a 400 obviously not withstanding the extra reach.

I think I was expecting more from last night....I think though it really was the extremes of what I will come across in the future. Time will tell.

Thank you everyone for the very informative input.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Tug, longer telephoto lenses let in less light so you would probably have been down to 1/100th sec @ 6400 using a 400mm instead of a 300mm.
Click to expand...

Is this correct???

I would have thought that the exposure settings would be the same no matter what kind of lens you use once the light on the subject stays the same. It doesn't make sense that they change depending on the lens??? Is 1/200 at f2.8 and ISO1600 not the same with all lenses and cameras? I mean when you take a reading with a lightmeter you don't have to tell it what kind of lens you are using so it can calculate the exposure?

Am i wrong here??
 
Isn't it common sense that a wider angle lens would be able to let in more light?
 
Not to me it isn't. I've always thought it depended on the f/ number, shutter speed and current ISO speed, not the focal length of the lens. It's the first time I've ever heard it actually.

Surely if a 300 f/2.8 can't let in as much light as a 400 f/2.8, then it's not an f/2.8 lens?
 
alexw9 said:
Isn't it common sense that a wider angle lens would be able to let in more light?
Click to expand...

Maybe to you it is but not to me.

If you take a meter reading of a footballer running around in a field and the meter reads 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000 for example.

You now go to take a picture of the footballer. You have two lenses - a 24mm f2.8 and a 300 f2.8 - do you have to take a different reading for each?

Not being smart here but photography is capturing light reflecting off of a surface. In this case it's the sun reflecting off of our favourite football player in a field. No matter what lens, camera, filter, tripod, stool, peli case or wetgear you have, the correct exposure for the footballer is 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000.

Trust me on this :)
 
Give me 2 minutes and ill prove it

ksapwaff said:
Maybe to you it is but not to me.

If you take a meter reading of a footballer running around in a field and the meter reads 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000 for example.

You now go to take a picture of the footballer. You have two lenses - a 24mm f2.8 and a 300 f2.8 - do you have to take a different reading for each?

Not being smart here but photography is capturing light reflecting off of a surface. In this case it's the sun reflecting off of our favourite football player in a field. No matter what lens, camera, filter, tripod, stool, peli case or wetgear you have, the correct exposure for the footballer is 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000.

Trust me on this :)
Click to expand...
 
haha I could be wrong actually. Although I just done a quick test with a 24-70 2.8 and I got an extra 1/3 stop at 24mm compared to 70mm. Not much I know.
 
ksapwaff said:
Not strictly true.

Anyway, heres a quick test i did to prove im right.

Camera is a D3S set to f/4 using aperture priority mode for all 4 photos, iso set 12,800 for all 3 photos, i stood in exactly the same place to record all 3 photos within about 20 seconds, EXIF is intact in all 3 photos and going from 28mm - 75mm - 300mm is on the extreme side but its just to prove a point

28mm gave a shutter speed of 160th sec

28mm.jpg


75mm gave a shutter speed of 1/100th sec

75mm.jpg


300mm gave a shutter speed of 1/50th

300mm.jpg
Click to expand...
 
alexw9 said:
haha I could be wrong actually. Although I just done a quick test with a 24-70 2.8 and I got an extra 1/3 stop at 24mm compared to 70mm. Not much I know.
Click to expand...

Its not strictly about a lens gathering light reflected from a given subject but more about the light a lens gathers from the area it sees, and the field of view between a 300mm and 400mm lens is different hence the amount of light the lens can gather is different
 
I think an easier way to put it would be to say that the narrower field of view that the 400mm has over the shorter lens would give a more accurate exposure of the target than that of the shorter/wider lens....This would also account for why the shorter/wider lens is more prone to giving a incorrect exposure of a target that is further away. It has a wider view that takes in all the other influencing light sources both incident and reflected.

When it started out it was simple....lol
 
Hmm. Well I never knew that.
 
Tugster said:
I think an easier way to put it would be to say that the narrower field of view that the 400mm has over the shorter lens would give a more accurate exposure of the target than that of the shorter/wider lens....This would also account for why the shorter/wider lens is more prone to giving a incorrect exposure of a target that is further away. It has a wider view that takes in all the other influencing light sources both incident and reflected.

When it started out it was simple....lol
Click to expand...
Again not strictly true, the shutter speeds are saying there's almost 2 stops difference between the 28mm and the 300mm but neither are what you would consider under or over exposed by 2 stops
 
Gary Coyle said:
Anyway, heres a quick test i did to prove im right.
Click to expand...
But that test you did is the same as taking a picture of a horse, then one of an elephant and then another of a dog. They are completely different????

Also, the first one is underexposed a fair bit, the second a little bit and the third is about right. If you had used f4 and 1/50 for all three then they would all be exposed correctly for the chair. You would have blown out the sky in the first obviously but you were exposing for the chair were you not? It's the only thing in the three pics so I presume you were.

Take the footballer example again. When you are at a game what are you trying to expose correctly? The footballer.
OK, so what is lighting the footballer? The floodlights.

So, like your example above, he decides to stand in the one spot for a few minutes and you decide you would like a few different shots of him at different focal lengths. So you find out what are the exposure settings required to expose the footballer correctly. You use your 300mm lens to spot meter off his chest as he is wearing a middle grey shirt :) The meter results are 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000.

You look through the viewfinder and notice that your camera is indicating that it will underexpose by 1/3 of a stop at the settings you are using but you take a shot of him in manual mode at 300mm and BINGO, you have a head shot and it's exposed bang on. The camera indicated it would underexpose because of the darkness beind him.

OK. So you now decide that you'd like a full length shot as well so you switch to your 135 lens. You put in the same settings and you look through the viewfinder and notice that this time your camera is indicating that it will underexpose by 2/3 of a stop at the settings you are using but you take a shot of him in manual mode at 135mm and BINGO, you have a full length shot and the footballer is exposed bang on. The camera indicated it would underexpose because there was more darkness behind him in the stands.

So finally you now decide that you'd like a wide angle shot as well so you switch to your 24mm lens. You put in the same settings and you look through the viewfinder and notice that this time your camera is indicating that it will underexpose by 1 & 2/3 of a stop at the settings you are using but you take a shot of him in manual mode at 24mm and BINGO, you have a wide angle shot and the footballer is exposed bang on. The camera indicated it would underexpose because there was more darkness behind him in the stands and the dark sky. The crowd isn't exposed correctly because you didn't want them exposed correctly but the footballer so the same settings were correct.

Now if you were to use Av or Tv or whatever Nikon use like your example of the giraffe, dog amd antelope above then you would of course get completely different values if you used evaluative metering but if you were to use spot metering on the footballer then you WILL get the exact same exposure values and if your camera doesn't give you the same values then there is something wrong with it. Must be because its a Nikon :)
 
I think the only way to prove this is to take a photograph of a plain white wall at all focal lengths, that way the meter can't pick up on the parts of the scene as it changes due to focal length. If this still happens when taking photographs of a plain wall at all FL's, then I will believe.
 
trencheel303 said:
I think the only way to prove this is to take a photograph of a plain white wall at all focal lengths, that way the meter can't pick up on the parts of the scene as it changes due to focal length. If this still happens when taking photographs of a plain wall at all FL's, then I will believe.
Click to expand...

Don't worry it's not going to happen! :)

Unless the camera is broken!
 
I just think that Gary is lucky his missus didn't leave her Bridgets on the line :lol:
 
ksapwaff said:
But that test you did is the same as taking a picture of a horse, then one of an elephant and then another of a dog. They are completely different????

Also, the first one is underexposed a fair bit, the second a little bit and the third is about right. If you had used f4 and 1/50 for all three then they would all be exposed correctly for the chair. You would have blown out the sky in the first obviously but you were exposing for the chair were you not? It's the only thing in the three pics so I presume you were.

Take the footballer example again. When you are at a game what are you trying to expose correctly? The footballer.
OK, so what is lighting the footballer? The floodlights.

So, like your example above, he decides to stand in the one spot for a few minutes and you decide you would like a few different shots of him at different focal lengths. So you find out what are the exposure settings required to expose the footballer correctly. You use your 300mm lens to spot meter off his chest as he is wearing a middle grey shirt :) The meter results are 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000.

You look through the viewfinder and notice that your camera is indicating that it will underexpose by 1/3 of a stop at the settings you are using but you take a shot of him in manual mode at 300mm and BINGO, you have a head shot and it's exposed bang on. The camera indicated it would underexpose because of the darkness beind him.

OK. So you now decide that you'd like a full length shot as well so you switch to your 135 lens. You put in the same settings and you look through the viewfinder and notice that this time your camera is indicating that it will underexpose by 2/3 of a stop at the settings you are using but you take a shot of him in manual mode at 135mm and BINGO, you have a full length shot and the footballer is exposed bang on. The camera indicated it would underexpose because there was more darkness behind him in the stands.

So finally you now decide that you'd like a wide angle shot as well so you switch to your 24mm lens. You put in the same settings and you look through the viewfinder and notice that this time your camera is indicating that it will underexpose by 1 & 2/3 of a stop at the settings you are using but you take a shot of him in manual mode at 24mm and BINGO, you have a wide angle shot and the footballer is exposed bang on. The camera indicated it would underexpose because there was more darkness behind him in the stands and the dark sky. The crowd isn't exposed correctly because you didn't want them exposed correctly but the footballer so the same settings were correct.

Now if you were to use Av or Tv or whatever Nikon use like your example of the giraffe, dog amd antelope above then you would of course get completely different values if you used evaluative metering but if you were to use spot metering on the footballer then you WILL get the exact same exposure values and if your camera doesn't give you the same values then there is something wrong with it. Must be because its a Nikon :)
Click to expand...

Spot metering is 100% totally unreliable for fast action sports like i shoot, ive tried it and to be fair its way too accurate, the shutter speed flies all over the place affecting the exposure as there are just too many colours, differences in shadow and contrast in players shirts, and you try spot metering on a players chest some 50 metres away and keep the focus point in that exact same position as the player moves sideways, back and forward and up and down, it's impossible im afraid, and exactly the reason other metering modes are put on cameras.

We cant all be running onto the field taking meter readings during play, we have to make the best of the situation were handed, i dont shoot weddings with a nice white dress to meter from in every shot.

I dont choose the scenes, conditions, backgrounds etc etc which i shoot under, i have open fields, packed stadiums, empty terraces, multiple players in multi coloured kit running in and out of the scene etc, i know 100% what works for me and i understand that shooting under those conditions the way i choose to shoot then focal length of a lens has a bearing on the end product in the way i describe, if every single player on both sides played in a white strip and the terraces, stands, supporters and everything in the background were white as well then i would agree 100% with your assessment and there would be no shift in shutter speed at varying focal lengths but it's not like that in the real world.
 
I give up.

I don't know you but it seems from other posts that you are a working photographer so I presume this is all some kind of joke and you are taking the **** out of me with these replies.

And if you're not then I'd suggest three things. One - type this entire post out in some other part of the forum and see what replies you get. Two - take your camera out of automatic modes and learn to expose properly using Manual mode and three - get yourself a copy of the book Understanding Exposure.

Best of luck.
 
ksapwaff

I am trying to figure out why you would attack Gary like.

I've not been on the forum long, but in that time it has become apparant that Gary (like many working pros on here - too many to mention) are extremely helpful & friendly.

They give their time and benefit of their experience free of charge and with the intention of helping people like me & others who wish to improve our photography.

I would suggest an apology is in order.
 
bigrob said:
ksapwaff

I am trying to figure out why you would attack Gary like.

I've not been on the forum long, but in that time it has become apparant that Gary (like many working pros on here - too many to mention) are extremely helpful & friendly.

They give their time and benefit of their experience free of charge and with the intention of helping people like me & others who wish to improve our photography.

I would suggest an apology is in order.
Click to expand...

Attack??

I'm sure Gary and many others are very helpful to you and others but it's not very helpful when you are being told incorrect information. If people can't see what is wrong here then that's fine but what Gary is saying in this case is just nonsense.
Exposure is exposure regardless of lenses. And if you're going to be using automatic modes on your camera then of course you are going to get different readings because your camera is only guessing what you are exposing, is it the player, the grass, the crowd etc. If you are exposing for the player under lights then it's going to be the same all the time so use manual mode. If you can't understand that then I can't help you anymore. Buy a book.

As for apologising?? For what?? For trying to explain to someone that what they are saying is wrong?? Ok then, I'm sorry. :)
 
ksapwaff said:
I give up.
Click to expand...
Please do

Shooting manual is all fine and dandy when there aren't variable lighting conditions and you have time to keep checking your exposure is correct, (not really possible when a player is hurtling towards the tryline and just about to touchdown for a try and he's running in and out of shadows) you do know what clouds are i assume, and the fact that all of a sudden then can throw dark shadows across your field of view, i'll also assume that you know what the sun is and that it can cast shadows from stands etc, do you want me to stop the play and ask the players not to run into the shade and just stay in the light, you never heard about auto modes and how helpful they can be, the auto ISO mode is a fantistic tool in helping in the conditions ive just described.
 
There isn't a single answer to this argument as there are to many variables to take into account.

Firstly Gary is correct that it is difficult to use manual shooting sports under floodlights as the pitches are not evenly lit. Also there probably will be shadows from the stadia roofing down the sides. This also applies to sunny days when shadows cast are very strong and may cover half the pitch.

It is also correct to say exposures vary using different focal lenses/metering system due to the area the meter is reading from (bright area's/shadow area's etc) hence the underexposure in Gary's first example (bright sky/dark foreground).

Another factor is the actual diaphragm in the lens varies according to the focal length. So f2.8 with an 85mm lens will give an actual opening of 30.36mm and the diaphragm at 400 f2.8 will be 142.85mm. The cameras meter system has to calculate this when "attempting" to create a correct exposure. Other factors are which metering system is being used with how many points.

You simply cannot compare a cameras meter to a hand held meter as they will not consistently give the same reading as the light is recorded different ie from different points.

I could go on for hours with this stuff but its really boring but the main point is to set the camera to give consistently the correct exposure for the conditions.
 
Last edited:
snapzz said:
the main point is to set the camera to give consistently the correct exposure for the conditions.
Click to expand...
Thats the crux isnt it, we all shoot under differning lighting conditions so we all use the best method for our own conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top